Constitution to have bin in all the Neighbouring Kingdoms in Europe which have bin raised according to the Gothic Model of Government upon the Ruins of the Roman Empire now let us look into Scotland and there we shall find this Institution as Ancient as any History or Record they have If we pass into France we shall find their Assembly of Estates or Great Council to have bin as Ancient as their first Kings and to have had as much Power as any where else in Europe Since they not only frequently Elected but also Deposed their Kings of the first Race and disposed of the Succession of the Crown as they thought fit If we look into Spain we shall find in the two greatest and most Considerable Kingdoms viz. Castile and Arragon the like Assemblies the Power of which was so great in the latter that they could even Depose the King himself if he Tyranniz'd over or Oppress 't them If we go more Northward we shall find in the Ancient Kingdoms of Denmark and Sweden and Norway that their Assembly of Estates or Dyets Elected their Kings and could likewise Depose them till those Kingdoms became Hereditary which was but of modern times I shall omit Poland because perhaps you may dispute whether it is a Kingdom or a Commonwealth But if we pass into Hungary which was Instituted by the Huns a Nation of Gothic Original we shall find not only the like Assembly of Estates as in the other Kingdoms but also that they had a Magistrate called the Palatine who was as it were the Conservator of the People's Liberties and who could Resist even the King himself if he invaded them and which is also very remarkable in all these Kingdoms except Denmark the Representatives of the Cities or Principal Towns which constituted the third Estate or Commons in those Kingdoms had always a place in those Great Councils So that to conclude it is almost impossible to conceive how these Kingdoms I have now mentioned could all agree to fall into the same sort of Government about the same time unless it had proceeded from the particular temper and Genius of the Germane and Gothick Nations from which they were derived Or who can believe that all these Nations and their Kings finding the like Conveniences from these Great Councils and Inconveniences by the want of them should all Conspire to set them up in each of these particular Kingdoms M. I will not deny but that the Institution of Great Councils or Assemblies of the Estates might be as Ancient as the Government it self in several of those Kingdoms you mention which were at first Elective but what is that to England where our Monarchy hath bin by Succession from the first Institution of it and not Elective as you suppose Nor do I much value the Authority of the Mirrour as to the Great Antiquity he Ascribes to this Assembly of Counts or Comites as Bracton calls them and in which by the way no Commons are mentioned And tho I grant the Iudicial Power of the House of Peers is very Ancient Yet that it wholy proceeded at first from the Indulgence of our Kings appears from hence that there was always a necessity of the King's Presence in Parliaments which is very well proved by Sir Robert Cotton in a Learned Treatise written on that Subject wherein he proves that in all Consultations of State and Decisions of private Plaints it is clear from all times the King was not only present to Advise but also to Determine And whensoever the King is present all Power of Iudging which is derived from his ceaseth the Votes of the Lords may serve for matter of Advice the Final Iudgment is only the Kings But indeed of late years Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth by reason of their Sex being not so fit for publick Assemblies have brought it out of use by which means it is come to pass that many things which were in former times acted by Kings themselves have of late bin left to the Iudgment of the Peers who in quality of Iudges Extraordinary are permitted for the Ease of the King and in his Absence to determine such matters as were Anciently brought before the King himself sitting in Person attended by his Great Council of Prelates and Peers And the Ordinances that are made there receive their Establishment either from the King's Presence in Parliament where his Chair of State is constantly placed or at least from his Confirmation of them who in all Courts and in all Causes is Supream Iudge All Judgments are by or under him and cannot be without much less against his Approbation The King only and none but He if He were able should judge all Causes saith Bracton so that nothing seems plainer to me than that the Iurisdiction which the House of Peers have hitherto exercised for the Hearing and Determining all Causes as well Civil as Criminal by way of Appeal not only between Subjects but also in all Accusations against the Lords themselves proceeds wholy from the Kings which may appear by an Ancient Precedent mentioned by Abbot Brampton in his History It is the Case between King Edw. the Confessor and Godwin Earl of Kent whom the King accused for the Death of his Brother Prince Alfred before the House of Peers and there you will find that after the Earl had put himself upon the Iudgment of the Kings Court the King thereupon said You Noble Lords Earls and Barons i. e. Thanes of the Land who are my Liege-Men now gathered here together and have heard my Appeal and Godwin's Answer I will that in this Appeal between us ye Decree Right Iudgment and do true Iustice And upon their Judgment that the Earl should make the King sufficient Satisfaction in Gold and Silver for the Death of his Brother the King being thereof informed and not willing to contradict it the Historian there sayeth He ratified all they had judged I could give you many other Precedents of latter Date were it not too tedious But this is sufficient to shew that what the Pâ—ers acted in this matter was by the King 's Sole Will and Permission I shall only conclude with one Precedent more in Case of some what alike Nature It is that of Hen. Spencer Bishop of Norwich 7 Rich. 2d who was accused foâ— joyning with the French The Bishop complained what was done against him did not pass by the Assent and Knowledge of the Peers whereupon it was said in Parliament that the Cognisance and Punishment of his Offence did of Câ—mmon Right and Ancient Custom of the Realm of England solely and wholy belong to our Lord the King and no other From all which I infer that the Iudicial Power exercised by the House of Peers is meerly derivative from and Subservient to the Supream Power resiâ—â—ing in the King From whence it also follows that if the Peers have no Power nor Honour but what proceeds from the Prince and that the Commons
was that of the free burrough or Tything wherein by the Laws of King Edward the Confessor the Tythingman or Head burrough was the Judge who as that Law tells us determined all suits and differences arising among Neighbours of the same Tything concerning petty Trespasses on one anothers grounds which if they could not be there determined might then be brought before the Court Baron which was incident to every Mannor and wherein the Suitors and not the Lord nor his Steward were the Judges and this as Sir Edward Coke tells us was first instituted for the ease of the Tenants and for the ending of Debts and Damages under Potty Shillings at home as it were at their own doors and let me tell you by the way that sorty Shillings was theo near as much as forty pound is now and if the business could not be ended here or was of too high a nature it was then brought into the Hundred Court where the Hundreder together with the Suitors were Judges and if they had not Justice there they might then remove it into the Court of Trithing or Lathe which was not the smaller Court of the Tithing mentioned nor yet the Court Leet but a particular Court consisting of three or four Hundreds which tho' now quite lost was in being at the time of the Statute of Merton as I shall shew you by and by and if the business could not be decided in the Trithing it was then removed to the Shire or County Court as Mr. Lambert shews in the Laws of King Edward which was then held as now from Month to Month and in which as well as in the Hundred Court the Suitors alone were Judges and tho' it can now only hold Pleas unless it be by Writ of Justices of any Debt or Damage to the value of Forty Shillings or above yet we â—ind from ancient Authors that this Court was so considerable that we have diverse examples of Causes between the greatest Persons of England and for Lands of great value begun and determined in this Court thus Eadmertes relates the great Trial at Pinnesden-heath between Odo Bishop of Bayenâ— half Brother to your Conqueror and by him created Earl of Kent and Lanfrank Archbishop of Canterbury concerning divers Mannors in Kent and other Counties whereof Earl Odo had diseized the See of Canterbury in the time of Arch-bishop Stigand his Predecessor whereupon the Arch-bishop Petitioned the King that Justice might be done him secundem Legem Terrae and the King thereupon sends forth a Writ to summon a County Court the debate lasted three days before the Freemen of the County of Kent in the presence of many Chiefmen Bishops and Lords and others skilful in the Laws and Judgment passed for the Arch-bishop Lanfrank by the Votes of the Freemen Or primorum or proboâ—â—â— hominum as the Historian calls them So that to conclude this head if no suit could be begun in those days but what was first commenced in the Hundred Court no distringas could issue forth till three demands were made in the Hundred and from thence to be removed to the County Court where regularly all civil causes were try'd by the Suitors as the only Judges as well as in the Hundred Court and Court Baron then it will necessarily follow that unless you can prove which I think is impossible that all the English were at that time Slaves and Villains and had no Free-hold of any sort left them that all Pleading and Proceedings in any of those Courts being before meer Englishmen must have been in English and no other Language so that after all this great cry nor a twentieth part of the Suits in England were brought to London And as for Criminal Causes unless in cases of Treason all Murthers and other Felonies were Tryed and Judged in the Country either within the particular Jurisdictions of Bishops Abbots or great Lords or else of such Cities and Towns who had the Priviledges of Infangthief and Outfangthief together with Fossa and Furca that is a Pit to drown and a Gallows to hang Malefactors and if the offence was done in the body of the County they were then tryed and condemned in the County Court Justices Itinerant not being in use till Henry the seconds Reign M I must confess you have given me a great deal of light in these matters more than I had before but as I shall not dispute whether in the lowest Courts such as the Tythings and Court Barons the smaller English Free-holders might not Judge of Petty causes amongst themselves yet that in those greater causes were brought in the Hundred and County Courts which only the greater Fleemen of the Hundred or County were Judges who these Freemen were Dr. B. hath sufficiently taught us in his Commenes upon the Conquerors Laws as also in his Glossary viz. That they were Tenants in Military Service who in those times were the only great Freemen of the Kingdom and quite different from our ordinary Free-holders at this day These were the Men the only legal Men that named and chose Juries and served on Juries themselves both in the County and Hundred Court and dispatched all Country business under the great Officers I do not deny but that there might be other lesser Freemen in those times but what their quality was farther than that their Persons and Blood was Free that is they were not Nativi or Bondmen it will give a knowing man trouble to discover it to us we find in every leaf of Doomesday Socmen liberi homines Possessors of small parcels of Land but what there quality was and of what interest in the Nation Dicat Apollo no Man yet hath made it out nor can it be done by the account we have of ordinary Free-men for a Century or two last past And for further proof of this That none but Tenants in Capite or Military Tenants at least could be Judges in the County Court appears by the Laws of King Henry the first wherein it is expresly said Regis Iudices Barones Comitatus qui liberas in t is terras habent per quos debent causae singulorum alterna prosecutione tractari c. So that these Barons of the County being certainly Feudal Tenants this service of being suitors to the County and Hundred Courts was a service incident to their Tenures and then it will also follow that those Primores and probi Viri who as you have now related tryed this Cause between Earl Odo and Archbishop Lanfranc and who let me tell you were not only of the County of Kent but of other Counties in England where the Mannors and Lands lay as Eadmerus shews us and who were the Jurors in this great Cause consisted of the great Military Tenants that were not Barons and the less which were the Probi Viri for it can be no ways probable that the ordinary Freemen which made the greatest number and were all bound to
or for the time being may not be legally defended in the Throne for as for that part of the Oath which was taken to King Iames himself it can hold no longer than whilst he continued King If therefore the Estates of the Kingdom have adjudged him to have forfeited or abdicated the Crown the whole Nation ought to take this as to have been legally done since it was done by the judgment of the highest Authority in the Nation when King Iames had deserted the Throne the like I may also say for the other part of the Oath of Allegiance whereby we are obliged to his Heirs and Lawful Successors for since there has been a dispute concerning the succession of the Crown between the Princess of Orange and your Prince of Wales if the Convention who are the sole proper Judges in this Case have thought fit for the reasons I have already given you at our last Meeting to declare King William and Queen Mary the lawful King and Queen of England all the Nation ought to accept them for such since it was done by the highest Authority at that time extant in the Nation and the only proper Judges of that right and if disputes about legal rights of which certainly that of succeeding to the Crown is of the highest importance ought to be decided by Law and not by the Sword which is not the decision of civil Authority but of force the sentence of competent Judges must end the dispute and if the Estates of the Realm be not the proper and legal Judges of such Disputes that concern the right to the Crown there can be none and if they be Subjects must acquiesce in their Judgments or it is all one as if there had been none for if Men may pretend Conscience and adhere to their own private Opinions as sole Judges the dispute must end in blows which is contrary to the reason and nature of humane Societies which were instituted to prevent Civil Wars and to end all Controversies by a legal Judgment without the Sword And to let you see farther that as to the Allegiance of the Subjects it is all one in respect of us who are Subjects whether the Convention have judged right or wrong in this case Let us suppose a Person who has only a pretence but no true right to an Estate should commence a Suit of Law for it and at last obtaine a Verdict of the Jury and also a Judgment of the Court of Kings-Bench for his Title can any Man deny but that the Sheriff is by vertue of this Verdict and Judgment oblig'd to put this Abator into possession of this Estate notwithstanding he may know of his own knowledge that the person who has obtain'd this Judgment has no true right to the Estate or will any Lawyer doubt whether all the Tenants of the Mannour are not oblig'd to swear homage and fealty to this suppos'd Lord if they are required by him so to do Now though the true Heir or owner has the legal right to the Estate yet by the supream Law of all Societies which refers the decision of all personal rights to a legal Authothority he who by a legal judgment is possessed of it has the legal right in the Estate against all other claims and legal Authority must desend him in it and all who will submit to Laws and Legal Authority must acquiesce in it And thus it must be with respect to the Rights of Princes as well as of Subjects the right to the Crown has been often disputed as we all know and to say that when such disputes happen there is no Authority in the Nation to decide them is to say that Princes have no rights to their Crowns by the Laws of that Nation for there can be no Civil Rights of which there neither are nor can be any Civil Judges for no man no not a Prince can be judge in his own Cause and if Princes have no legal rights they can lose no legal rights when they lose their Crowns and I doubt their natural rights swill affect the Consciences of very few Subjects Therefore every independent Civil Society which is not wholly governed by the Sword must from the nature of such Societies and the reason of their institution have authority within it self to decide all Controversies which may arise about the rights of every member of that Society and to preserve it self from falling into a state of War which is a dissolution of all Civil Government and if there ought to be such an Authority in every Civilized Nation when this Supream Authority has given sentence in such Disputes this must also determine all the Subjects and ought likewise to have the same effect upon the contending Princes themselves and no right or pretence of right ought to affect the Conscience after such a final Judgment unless Civil Rights can oblige Subjects to dissolve Civil Governments and to dispute Civil Rights not by the Law but by the Sword which is to overthrow all Civil Rights and put an end to the Authority of Laws I hope this may serve to shew you how much you are mistaken to suppose that there can be no King in an hereditary Monarchy but the next lineal Heir and tho' I grant no Allegiance can be due or ought to be paid to him who is no King yet will it not follow that none can be due to any Prince if he be not the next heir for that no obedience can be due to him who is no King I readily grant but yet he may be a legal King in this Kingdom who is not the next Heir by blood as almost half of the Kings of England since the Conquest were not and yet have been always own'd and obey'd as legal Kings M. I confess what you say would go a great way to satisfie me could you prove that there was no difference between the succession to Crowns and private inheritances where I grant that the judgement of the Supream Court of the Nation is to determine not only the possession but the right too in respect of the person who loses his Estate by an unjust verdict or illegal judgment whereas it is otherwise in the Title of Crowns to which Princes have a right as well by the Laws of God and Nature as also by the receiv'd setled Laws and Customs of the Kingdom concerning the Succession by descent which is call'd in the 13th of Queen Elizabeth in the Statute we have so much debated at our last Meeting the Common Laws of this Realm and it is there declared that it ought to direct the right of the Crown of England and it is there made Treason during the Queens life to affirm the contrary and this course of lineal Succession at Common Law was also declar'd by solemn judgment in Parliament in the case I have so often urg'd of the Duke of York's Title to the Crown against Henry the VIth that it could no way be defeated by
write against any man's Opinions as they are his but only freely to examine them in order to an impartial discovery of the Truth and since some of them may have been perhaps too commonly and favourably received by our ordinary Gentry and Clergy if therefore any ingenious person will take upon him farther to assert or vindicate any Opinion here questioned either by the one or other of our Disputants and will clearly and fairly shew me where my Argument might 〈◊〉 been put more home or any Objection more solidly answered shall be so far from taking it amiss that I shall rather give him my thanks for his pains and do here farther promise to insert all or at least the substance of his Arguments under their poper Heads with all due acknowledgments to their Authors if ever the Discourses will bear a second Impression only I desire him whosoever he shall be so far to imitate the Gentlemen who are supposed to converse in these Dialogues as to for bear all rude Reflections and course Language otherwise I hope they will give me their pardon if I only take notice of their Reasons and pass by their Passion Nor would I have any Candid Reader to slight the two first Dialogues because they treat of Opinions at present out of fashion viz. The Divine Right of Monarchy and Succession from the Patriarchal Power given by God to Adam since you may easily remember that it is not many years ago that our Pulpits and Presses would scarce suffer any other Doctrines either to be Preacht or Publisht than on these Subjects It faring with some Political Opinions as with Fashions which are never so generally received and worn as when they have been in Vogue at Court Those Divines and Lawyers who were the first Inventers or new Vampers of them commonly receiving the greatest Rewards and Prefermets who as the Court Taylors did Fashions could invent such Doctrines and Opinions as were most burthensome and uneasie to all sort of People except a few Great ones who were to gain by them and I desire you also farther to consider that however odd or unreasonable these Doctrines may seem to most men yet certainly they must have at least a great appearance of Truth since they were able to Captivate the Reasons of the Major part of both Houses of Convocation in the begining of the Reign of King James the First they then declaring them by several Cannons made on purpose the only sure Foundations of all Civil Authority as also of Obedience thereunto as plainly appears by that late Treatise which goes under the name of Bishop Overal's Convocation-Book And thô neither the King nor Parliament then thought fit to give those Cannons the stamp of Civil Authority whereby they might become Laws Yet for all this it did not hinder divers Learned and Ingenious men as well of Clergy as Laity from embracing these Opinions such as were Sir Robert Filmer and his Vindicatior Mr. B. as also the most Reverend and Learned Bishop Sanderson with divers others of note whose Arguments I have made use of and considered in the two first Dialogues and that in a way as little reflective as possible since I know what is due to the memory and fame of such great and worthy Persons and therefore I have only made use of the initial Letters of their Names or Titles of their Books in the Margine with an Index at the beginning of each Discourse shewing what Book each mark does signifie which Method I have persued through all the rest of these Discourses and of what is not so markâ— I desire the Reader to look upon the words if not the sense to be my own since I do not pretend to be an Inventer of new Notions in Politicks and there is no man more sensible than my self of that Old Latine Sentence Nihil dictum quod non dictum prius But tho' I have already finisht almost all the Discourses on the Subjects above mentioned yet am I not very fond of publishing them after so many several Treatises that have been written thereon tho' my design be for the saving of the Readers money as well as time to reduce what is material in all of them into so many 12 d. Books and therefore I have at present published this first Dialogue as an Introduction to the rest that according to the success I find this meets with abroad I may be more or less encouraged to proceedâ— nor â—eed it seem strange to any considering person that I chuse rather to publish one Discourse at a time since it is but too publick a Complaint how scarce a Commodity Money as well as Paper is at this time And therefore I have given the Printer leave to publish one of these Discourses in a month or oftner as he shall think good since I am sensible the greatest part of common Reader would rather part with eight or ten shillingâ— at so many several times than all at once and have therein endeavoured to imitate the Great Council of the Nation who have thought fit to divide the present Pole-Tax into four quarterly Payments I have but one thing more to advertise the Reader viz. That tho' the Title of this Discourse mentions no more than the discussing the Question Divine Right of Monarchy yet the natural Powers of Fathers and Masters of Families and Freemen are here disâ—inctly treated of and closely enquired into as being the first Elements or Principles of all Civil Powers as those alone out of which they could be at first regularly made and into which they are upon the dissolution of Civil Governments again to be resolved To conclude therefore I hope that the Arguments in this and all the following Discourses may prove so plaiâ— and convincing to all careful and unprejudiced Readers that they may as easily discover the Truth as an honest unbyass'd Iury-man can aâ— a Tryal judge on which side the Right and Iustice of the Cause inclines upon the barehearing the Evidence on both sides nay even before the Court hath summed it up Since I think it may prove more useful as well as divertive to hear or peruse the Arguments and Reasons in short that may be brought oâ— either side and thereon to pass a Judgment than to Read over the tedious and Voluminous Deâ—ds and Evidences of the Estate in Question But on which side soever you bring in your Verdict I heartily wish that God would direct your minds and guide your Iudgments to find out and embrace the Truth which as it was the only End of my writing so it is now and will be also of publishing this and those other Treatises I intend on the Subjects I have before mentioned Adieu The Subject of the First Dialogue WHether Hereditary Monarchy be of Divine Right or Institution Authors made use of in this Dialogue and how denoted in the Margin 1. Sir Robert Filmers's 1. Observations on Grotius de Belli Paâ—u R. F. O. G. 2. Patriarcha F.
be resisted and yet be still unaccountable those two differing as must us Self-defence does from punishment as I have more than once told you M. I cannot rest satisfied with this Reply for though I so far agree with you that an Act without a Legal Authority carries no Obligation at all along with it and therefore cannot oblige the Subject to Obedience Now this is true if by Obedience you mean an Active Obedience for I am not bound to do an ill thing or an Illegal Action because my Prince commands me but if you mean Passive Obedience it is as manifestly false for I am bound to obey that is not to resist my Prince when he offers me the most unjust and illegal Violence Nay it is very false and absurd to say that every Illegal is an Inauthoritative Act which carries no Obligation with it This is contrary to the practice of all Human Judicatures and the daily Experience of Men who suffer in their Lives Bodies or Estates by an unjust or illegal Sentence Every judgment contrary to the true meaning of the Law is in that sense illegal and yet such illegal Judgments have their Authority and Obligation till they are rescinded by some higher Authority This is the true reason of Appeals from Inferiour to Superiour Courts to rectifie Illegal Proceedings and reverse Illegal Judgments which supposes that such Illegal Acts have Authority till they are made null and void by a higher Power And if the higher Powers from whence lies no Appeal confirm and ratifie an Unjust and Illegal Sentence it carries so much Authority and Obligation with it that the Injured person hath no Redress but must patiently submit and thus it must necessarily be or there can be no end of Disputes nor any Order or Government observed in Human Societies And this is a plain Demonstration that tho' the Law be the Rule according to which Princes ought to exercise their Authority and Power yet the Authority is not in the Laws but in the Persons that Execute them For otherwise why is not a Sentence pronounced according to Law by a private person of as much Authority as a Sentence pronounced by a Judge or how doth an Illegal Sentence pronounced by a Judge come to have any Authority For a sentence contrary to Law cannot have the Authority of the Law And why is a Legal or Illegal Sentence reversible and alterable when pronounced by one Judge and irreversible and unalterable when pronounced by another For the Law is the same and the Sentence is the same either according to Law or against it whoever the Judge be But indeed the Authority of the person is not the same and that makes the difference So that there is an Authority in persons in some sense distinct from the Authority of Laws nay superiour to it For there is such an Authority as tho' it cannot make an Illegal Act Legal yet it can and often doth make an Illegal Act binding and obligatory to the Subjects when pronounced by a competent Judge F. I think notwithstanding all you have now said your distinction of a Supreme Authority in Persons above and distinct from the Authority of Laws will prove a meer Notion for you grant that the King hath no Just or Legal Authority to act against Law and that if he put any man to death contrary to it it is downright murder but you will not allow that if the King should thus murder never so many thousands either he or those Instruments of Tyranny may be resisted And therefore you would fain top upon me your old distinction of an Active and Passive Obedience The former of which I very well understand but as for the latter I have long since proved that it is so far from being any Obedience that it is indeed downright Disobedience or a refusal to do that which the Prince Commands so that truly your self have taught me to distinguish between the King 's Personal Authority and his Legal for otherwise why are you not as much obliged to yield an Active Obedience to the King 's Personal Illegal Commissions or Commands as to his Legal ones if there were no difference between them So then all the difference between us lyes in the measure of the Disobedience you maintaining that it is sufficient not to yield Obedience to such Illegal Commissions and Commands and I that besides this denyal of Obedience if it be in a fundamental point and that which generally concerns the whole body of the Kingdom that they may not only be disobeyed but resisted too if forced upon us with violence and therefore all that you have said to prove that the Authority to which we are bound to submit consists not in the Laws but in the Persons tho' acting contrary to Law is according to your own way of reasoning altogether unconclusive And farther when you say that it is false and absurd to affirm that every Illegal is an unauthoritative Act which carries no Obligation with it I shall prove that this absurdity lyes wholly on your side For 1. Legal and Authoritative are all one in our Law for that which is not Legal carries no Authority along with it so that Illegal Authority is in plaiâ—â— English unlawful lawful Power nor had K. Charles 1. any such extravagant Notion of his Royal Authority who certainly understood his own Power better than you or I when he owns in his Declaration to the Long Parliament dated from Newmarket 1641. That the Law is the measure of his Power which is as full a Concession of the thing I affirm as words can express For if the Laws be the measure of it then his Royal Power or Authority which is all one is Limited by it For the measure of any thing is the Limits or bounds of the thing Limited and when it exceeds those bounds it is an Illegal and consequently an Unauthoritative Act which carries no Obligation either Active or Passive along with it So likewise in the said King's answer to both Houses concerning the Militia speaking of the Men by them named to him to be Commissioners for it He thus replyed If more Power shall be thought fit to be granted to them than by Law is in the Crown it self His Majesty holds it reasonable that the same be by some Law first vested in him with Power to transfer it to these Persons c. In which Passage it is granted that all the Power or Authority of the Crown concerning the Militia is by or from the Law and that the King hath no more Authority than what is vested in him by the Law of the Land 2. Your Argument from the practise of Human Judicatures is also very fallacious for you Argue from the bare abuse of a Trust or Commission with the Execution of which all Judges Officers must be intrusted to that which is quite of another Nature viz When the Person intrusted Acts directly contrary to his Commission or without any Commission
at all And therefore you are quite out in your Law when you tell me that an Absolute Illegal Judgment is valid till it be reversed for if it be appearantly contrary to the known Forms of Law and practice of the Kingdom it is so far from being valid that tho' it be put in Execution it would be lookt upon as null and done without any Authority at all As suppose the King in person or any Inferiour Judge should condemn a Man to die either contrary to the Verdict of his Jury or without any Jury at all this is so far from being Authoritative or valid that such a Judgment is void in it self and those are guilty of Murder who execute it and it will need no Writ of Error to reverse it But I suppose by Illegal Judgments you mean such Judgments which have some Error in them either in matter of Law or Form for which they may be reversed I grant if these should not be lookt upon as valid and hold good till they are reversed in a higher Court there could not be any Judgment given at all since all Human Judicatories whatsoever are subject to Errors and Mistakes and there is sure a great deal of difference between such actions as are done by that Authority which the Law entrusts them with tho' not duly exercised and those violent and illegal acts which a Prince when he persecutes and enslaves his Subjects performs by his wicked Instruments contrary to all Divine and Human Laws So that the validity of such an Erroneous Judgment is not from the Judges personal Authority above the Law nor from his mistake or ignorance of the Law but from that high Credit and Authority which the Law hath given to all Courts and Judicial Proceedings which if they are done in due form are to be taken for Law however unjust and must be presumed to be free from Error till they are reversed in some higher Court. M. But if you please better to consider of it you will find a necessity of owning a Supreme Power in the King beyond all Appeal or Resistance and that there must be a personal Authority in him antecedent and superiour to all Civil Laws for there can be no Laws without a Law-maker and there can be no Law-maker unless there be one or more persons invested with the Power of Government of which making Laws is one principal branch for a Law is nothing else but the publick and declared Will and Command of the Law-makers whether they be a Soveraign Prince or the People And hence it necessarily follows that a Soveraign Prince does not receive his Authority from the Laws but Laws receive their Authority from him And I must be still of the same Opinion as to Bracton's words which you before quoted Lex facit Regem the Law makes the King by which I cannot believe that that great Lawyer meant that the King received the Soveraign Power from the Law for the the Law hath no Authority nor can give any but what it receives from the King and then it is a wonderful riddle how the King should receive his Authority from the Law And therefore I must stick to my former Interpretation that when he says the Law makes the King that is it distinguisheth him from a Tyrant as appears from the reason he gives for it i. e. Non est enim Rex ubi dominatur voluntas non Lex he is no King that Governs by his Arbitrary Will and not by Law not that he is no Soveraign Prince but he is a Tyrant and not a King And hence it as evidently follows that the Being of Soveraign Power is independent on Laws that is as a Soveraign Prince doth not receive his Soveraign Power from the Law so should he violate the Laws by which he is bound to govern Yet he is not to be resisted much less doth he forfeit his Power 'T is true he breaks his Faith to God and his Countrey but he is a Soveraign Prince still And now I hope it plainly appears that every Illegal act the King doth or Illegal Commission that he grants is not an inauthoritative Act or Commission but layes on the Subject an Obligation to yield if not Active yet a Passive Obedience And in the King 's most Illegal acts tho' they have not the Authority of Laws yet they have the Authority of Soveraign Power which is irrisistible and unaccountable In a word it doth not become any Man who can think three consequences off to talk of the Authority of Laws in derogation to the Authority of Soveraign Power The Soveraign Power made the Laws and can Repeal them and Dispense with them and make new Laws The only Power and Authority of the Laws is in in the Power that can make and execute Laws Soveraign Power is unseparable from the Person of a Soveraign Prince tho' the exercise of it may be regulated by Laws and tho the Prince doth very ill who having consented to such a Regulation breaks the Laws yet when he acts contrary to Law such acts carry Soveraign and irrisistible Authority with them while he continues a Soveraign Prince F. I am very well satisfied notwithstanding all you have hitherto said that the Government of England owns no such thing as this Arbitrary Power with which you would invest the King since I have already proved at our â—th meeting that the King is not the Sole Legislator and consequently not the Sole Supreme Power So likewise our Law it doth as little understand any such thing as a Personal Authority in the King antecedent and Superiour to all Laws For since God hath now left off making Kings by his own special appointment as he did among the Jews every King must either be so by the Law or Custome of that Countrey or else a bare possession of the Throne is sufficient to make him so and then every Usurper hath as much right to a Crown as the most lawful Prince and Oliver Cromwell was as rightful a Prince as King Charles the Second It is true the first King of any Race could not be invested with the Crown by the same Law as his Successors are that is by an Hereditary proximity of Blood Yet such a King whenever he began to be so could have no Legal Right without the Election Recognition or Consent of the People And as for an Hereditary Right that is but a Right by the Law of the Land or general Consent of the People testified by an uninterrupted Custom to entail the Crown on such a Family so that in either Case they are Kings by Law and therefore I conceive it can be only in this sense that Bracton says Lex facit Regem i. e. The Law of the Kingdom makes the King which more plainly appears by what immediately follows attribuat igitur Rex Legi quod Lex attribuit ei viz. Dominationem Potestatem in which words nothing seems more plain than that the
any Legal Power all which could never have happened had not that War been not only begun but continued to the very last by a Standing Army which could give what Laws they pleased even to those that pretended to command them So that why the Abuse of this Right once in a Thousand years should be made any just Argument against the ever using it at all I can see no reason in the World for it As to the rest of your Discourse against making any War about Religion that is also as fallacious for tho' I grant that true Religion is not to be propagated yet I think it may lawfully be defended by the Sword especially where it is the received Establish'd Religion of a Nation or else the defence of Religion against Infidels would be no Argument at all to fight against a Turkish or Popish Prince that unjustly invaded us For tho' it is true that Religion cannot be taken away from any Man without his consent yet a Man may be taken from his Religion and when the Professors are destroyed either by Martyrdom or violent Persecution as bad or worse than death what will become of the Church and Religion Establisht by Law when all the Persons that constitute that Church are driven away destroyed or made to renounce it And for this we need go no farther than over the Water to our next Neighbour It is likewise as fallacious what 〈◊〉 urge of the great Corruption of Manners by Civil Wars which if it be any Argument at all is so against all Standing Armies whatever whether raised by lawful or unlawful Powers And I think there was much more debauchery in the King 's late Camp at Hounslow-heath as also in all places where they quartered than was lately at York or Nottingham among those that took up Arms in defence of their Religion or Civil Liberties unjustly invaded by the King and his Ministers nor does it always happen that Armies raised for defence of Religion and Civil Liberty must prove debaucht since we may remember that the Parliament Army to its praise be it spoken was infinitely more sober and outwardly religious than the King 's but if you will say that this proceeded from their Principles as well as good Discipline I know no reason why Men who fight in defence of their Religion and Civil Liberties may not upon Church of England Principles as to Church-Government and Common-Prayer and also by a strict Discipline be as little debaucht as any Standing Armies the most lawful Monarch can maintain who if they lye idle as ours have done all this King's Reign till now of late are more likely to fall into all the wickedness that attend a loose Discipline and want of Imployment and consequently may also corrupt the Places where they Quarter by their ill example M. I shall not longer argue this point since I see it is to no purpose But you have not yet told me what these fundamental Rights and Liberties are that you suppose the People may take up Arms to defend nor yet what number of the Nation may thus judge for themselves and take up Arms when they please for it may so happen that the whole Nation may be divided as to their opinions concerning these things And the South part of England for example may think their Religion and Liberties in great danger and that it is very necessary to take up Arms for it when the North parts are not under those apprehensions but lye still as was lately seen in the riseings for the Prince of Orange F. As to the first of these queries I think I can easily give you satisfaction and such as you can have nothing material to reply to And as for the other though I do not say I can give you such an answer as will bear no exception or reply yet I doubt not but it will be that which may very well be defended and may serve to satisfie any indifferent and unprejudiced person And which if not allowed will draw much worse consequences along with it And therefore as for the just Rights and Liberties we contend for they are only such as are contained in Magna Charta and the Petition of Right and are no more than the immemorial Rights and Liberties of this Kingdom and that first In respect of the safety of mens lives and the liberties of their persons aly The security of their Estates and Civil Properties And 3ly The enjoyment of their Religion as it is established by the common consent of the whole Nation All which I will reduce to these plain Propositions 1. That no Freeman of England ought to be imprisoned or arrested contrary to Law without specifying the cause of his commitment in the warrant or mittimus whereby he is sent to prison And he ought not to be sent out of the body of the Country or Jurisdiction where the crime was supposed to be committed unless he be removed by due course of Law neither ought he by the Law of England to be detained in Prison without Trial only for a punishment but ought to be Tried the next Assizes or Goal-delivery or within some reasonable time to be allowed of by the Court. And this was Common-Law many Ages before the Act of Habeas Corpus made in the 31st of King Charles the Second which does but ascertain that Law concerning bailing men for all manner of Crimes in case no Prosecution come in against them much less can the King or any Court below the whole Parliament banish any man the Kingdom in any case unless by some known Law already made whereby he is bound to abjure it upon a lawful Trial by his Peers and conviction by his own Confession 2. Nor can the King nor any Courts of Justice condemn a man to loss of Life or Members without due Trial by his Peers and Legal Judgment given thereupon And for proof of this I need go no farther than Magna Charta and the Petition of Right which are both but declaratory of the Common-Law of England◠see therefore Magna Charta cap. 29. Whereby it is declared and enacted that no freeman may be taken and imprisoned or be disseised of his freehold or Liberties or his free customs or be Outlawed or exiled or in any manner destroyed but by the lawful Judgment of his Peers or by the Law of the land which is also farther confirmed and explained by these Statutes viz. the 37 38 42. of Edward III. and 17. of Richard the II. all which are summed up and more particularly declared against contrary to the fundamental Laws of the land in the Petition of Right exhibited to King Charles the I. in Parliament in the thirtieth of his Reign wherein the late imprisonment of the Kings Subjects without any cause shewed and the denial of Habeas Corpus are expresly resented as also putting Souldiers and Mariners to death by Martial Law in time of peace And the King's answer to this Petition is remarkable
and Lord Lieutenants and if they had refused to answer positively to those questions proposed to them I know no other penalty they had been liable to more than being put out of Commission which sure is no punishment but rather an ease and tho' I do not defend those evil Ministers that put the King upon this Method of distrusting and disobliging his best Protestant Subjects I mean those of the Church of England by putting them out and putting in either Papists or Fanaticks in their steads yet all that own themselves of that Communion ought to have been of more loyal Principles than to have taken up Arms as some of them have done upon pretence of standing by the Prince of Oranges Declaration against these abuses F. I see though you cannot directly justifie the examining of the Lords Lieutenants and Deputy Lieutenants and Justices of the Peace about taking away the Penal Laws and Test and turning those out of Commission that refus'd yet you strive to mitigate it as far as you can by making it part of the Kings Prerogative to put in and out what Judges Justices and other Officers he pleases well granting this to be so yet sure you cannot deny but that the clositing of Judges and all other Officers you have now mention'd and putting those out of Commission that refus'd to comply with the Kings Will and that for no other reason was sure a strange abuse of that Prerogative and the excuse you make that the persons examin'd had a liberty to refuse whether they would give any positive answer or not is yet more trivial since it is very well known that as well those who gave doubtful answers or refused to make any answer at all were as much turned out as they who positively denied to comply with the Kings demands so that no answer was looked upon as satisfactory but such as seemed to give up all freedom of Elections and Votes in Parliament none being to be chosen by the Kings directions but such as would engage before hand to repeal the Test and Penal Laws and I think you will not deny but that the King by thus examining all these Magistrates and Officers you now mention and by turning those out that refused to comply did all he could to hinder the free Election of Members to serve in Parliament and the freedom of giving their Votes when they came thither and the King might as well another time have declar'd that he would have no Members chosen but such as would agree to take away the Statute de Tallagio non concidendo or any branch of Magna Chartâ— which he should think fit to have repeal'd and as this strikes at the very fundamental constitution of the Government viz the free Election of Parliament men so it was inserted among the Articles against Richard the II. that he had caus'd the Sheriffs to return whom he pleas'd for Knights of Shires as I have already shewed you But what say you to the Kings late calling in almost all the Charters of Cities Towns and Corporations in England and putting in Popish or Fanatick Officers and Magistrates into the rooms of those that were turn'd out only to influence Elections and to procure what persons he desired to be return'd for Parliament men is not this a grand breach of the fundamental constitution of the Kingdom thus to take away the legal Rights and Priviledges of these Corporations for no other cause than to procure the King such Parliament men as he had a mind to M. I beg your pardon I forgot to mention this sooner and though I will not take upon me absolutely to defend the Legality of it much less the design for which it was done since I grant that it was in order to destroy or at least to humble the Church of England yet since iâ— was done by colour of Law and Judgment of the Court of Kings Bench and no more than what has been formerly done in the Reign of King Charles I cannot see how the Noblemen and Gentlemen lately in Arms could defend their rising upon that ground unless they would also at the same time justifie the lawfulness of the Plot and Rebellion intended in the same Reign and in which so many of the Whig Nobility and Gentry were deeply engaged F. To answer what you have said in vindication of this great violation of one of the fundamental Rights and Liberties of the Kingdom I must in the first place tell you that as I shall not now examine into the matter of Law whether a Corporation can forfeit it's Charter for misdemeanours or not much less shall I concern my self whether it were done by or without colour of Law or the Judgment of the Court of Kings Bench since it is notoriously known that none of the Judges were permitted to sit there nor any new ones put in but such as would blindly agree to all the Court would have done and therefore I value nor any thing they did nor think it one â—ot the more legal for their Judgments nor is it any excuse that the same thing was done in King Charles Reign and therefore might as well be done now without any rising against it for though I must tell you I look upon the taking away of the Charters from the City of London and the other Cities and Corporations of the Kingdom one of the most arbitrary and illegal acts of that Kings Reign yet there were several reasons which made it unlawful for the Nation to rise then yet it might not be so now as in the first place because most of those Charters were either willingly surrender'd by the members of those Corporations or else were declared forfeited by due trial and Judgment of Law whereas it was much otherwise in this Kings Time when notwithstanding that all the Cities and Towns Corporate in England had but a few years before taken out new Charters to their great trouble and expence they were now summon'd anew to surrender these again for no other reason but because it was the Kings pleasure it should be so for who can imagine that all the Corporations of England could have forfeited their Charters in so short a time as three or four years and they were plainly told that the King must and would have them and that it was to no purpose to stand out and therefore it was no wonder if all the Cities and Corporations of England were forced to submit patiently to this violation since they found by experience the Judges were ready to give Judgment against them right or wrong And besides this I have already laid it down as a Maxime that no resistance whatever is to be made till matters become desperate and all other means are become absolutely ineffectual which I think they were not as long as King Charles lived who besides the inconstancy of his humour which seldome persisted long either in well or evil doing especially if the ill consequences of it were well laid
President and Fellows of Magdalen Colledge and that Prosecution that was lately order'd against all those Bishops and inferior Clergy who had refused to distribute or read the King's Declaration though I confess there was a stop put to this upon re-calling this Commission Immediately before the Princes Arrival So likewise for the other Article of levying Money contrary to Law that was also without any opinion of the Judges at all demaâ—ded about it for the illegal collection of Chimny Money by making Cottages and Ovens pay that were exempted by the Acts concerning it and also the illegal levying of Excise by making Small-Beer pay the Duties of Strong were all of them acted and done by particular directions from the Treasury or by the private abuse of the Farmers of the Excise without any opinion of the Judges and of these Orders his Majesty could not chuse but be the Author or approver at least since 't is very well known he constantly satâ— there when any great Business was to bâ— transacted and the Lord Treasurer or Commissioners of the Treasury would certainly never have presum'd to have issued out their Orders in a Case of so great moment if they had not been very well satisfied that it was his Majesty's express Will and Pleasure to have iâ— so And I my self have now by me a Copy of the then Lord Treasurers Directions to the Officers appointed for the levying of Chimney-money commanding them to levy it upon all Cottages and Ovens whatsoever which was done accordingly with the utmost rigour which though it was a very great oppression yet since it chiefly concern'd the poor and ordinary sort of people who had not purses to go to law with the King or else such Gentlemen and others who though they were forced to pay for their poor Tenants yet did they not think it worth their while to bring iâ— before the Barons of the Exchequer where as things then went they could not expect to find much Justice I shall not insist upon the King 's taking the additional Customs contrary to the Act of Parliament by which they were granted to the late King Charles only for life and though in his last Sickness there was a Contract for the new farming of them by vertue of which I grant the King might have justified the taking of them till the end of the Farm yet since that Contract never passed the Seals during the King's life-time it was certainly against Law for the King to take them before they were re-granted by Act of Parliament I say I shall not insist upon this since the Parliament were so easy as to pass it by without declaring it to have been illegal only it sufficiently shows that from the very beginning of the King's Reign he was resolv'd to govern arbitrarily and to levy Money upon the Subject whether the Law gave him any Authority to do it or not But as to what you say concerning the Judges being wholly in fault for all the unjust and illegal Proceedings exercis'd in their Courts and that the King was wholly faultless I should be of your mind had I not seen that all those Judges who would not agree to the dispensing power and other illegal Judgments I could name were turn'd out and others either Papists or of less consciences than Papists were put in their places which were not conferr'd for any longer time than durante bene placito and therefore no wonder if such men were absolute slaves to the King's will and pleasure M. I had much more to say in defence of the King 's raising and keeping up a standing Army and his disarming Protestants in and after the Duke of Monmouth's Rebellion which are laid to his charge as endeavours to destroy the Rights and Liberties of this Kingdom But since it grows late I shall only now take notice of something which I forgot to insist upon concerning your Notion of the King 's obdicating the Crown by a wilful breach of the Laws which is quite different from the sense in which this Word is taken in Roman Authors as also in our Civil-Laws For when Cicero uses the Expression Itaque tutela me abdicare togito Brison tells us his meaning was se nolle esse tutorem But Pompenius in his Book De orig Iuris gives us the true sense of this Phrase Abdicare se Magistratu est ante tempuâ— Magistratum deponere which plainly shows the Romans had no notion of a Tacit or imply'd abdication of a charge or Majestracy without a man's express consent and therefore if the Kings bare desertion of the Kingdom was not an Abdication of the Throne as you your self are forced to grant I cannot imagine how the King's violation of the Laws or endeavouring to subvert the Government both which you lay to his charge can properly be call'd an Abdication of it so that indeed the King hath not abdicated the Government but your Convention hath abdicated him And tho we often read in our Civil-law That a Father might abdicare filium yet I never read or can you show me any Example that a Son might abdicate a Father or Subjects their Prince F. You discourse upon a wrong ground for I never affirmed That Subjects had any authority to abdicate or depose their Prince nor hath the Convention assum'd any such power to themselves what they have done in this affair hath not been authoritative or as taking â—pon them to call the King to an account for his actions or to depose him for his misgovernment but only declarative to pronounce and declare as the Representatives of the whole Nation that by endeavouring to extirpate the Protestant Religion and to subvert the Fundamental Laws and Liberties of the Kingdom he had wilfully I do not say willingly Abdicated the Government that is renounced to Govern this Kingdom any longer as a lawful King which I take to be a tacit or imply'd Abdication of it as I have already proved and to shew you farther that even Tully himself allows in our sense of an imply'd Abdication in his third Philippicks when he says thus concerning Mark Anthony that for his offering a Crown to Caesar Eoâ—die-non modo Consulatu sed etiam libertate se abâ—itavit c. where you see Mark Anthony is said to have Abdioned the Consulshâ—p without any express Renunciation of it for Caesar might have continued him in it after he had been declar'd Emperor M. I grant your Authority to be good yet even in this sense this Abdication of the Consulship could only take its effect from Anthony's owâ— Will for offering a Crown to Caesar if he did not expresly yet he effectually renounced his Consulship for had Caesar accepted in he could no longer have been the Consul of a Popular State but must thenceforth have acted by authority from Caesar or not at all but then this would not have agreed with your Noâ—on of a Forfeiture which always supposes a crime and a depriving the party
the Nation from his Oppression though the Prince was pleas'd to accept it upon those terms expressed in the late Declaration of the Convention and upon his free promise to preserve preserve our Religion Laws and Liberties which he has since also confirm'd by his Coronation Oath But as to what you say that the Prince made the Kings Army desert him and wrought the People into hatred of his Person by lying Stories and mean Arts is altogether untrue since I know of no Reports he made of the King or his Government but what are in his first Declaration and that is certainly true in every part of it and as has been justified by the express Declaration of the Convention in every particular except that concerning the Prince of Wales which I confess is left still undecided because as I have already proved it is impossible to give any certain judgement in it unless the Witnesses as well as the Infant himself could be brought over hither nor doth the Prince in his said Declaration say any more concerning that business than that there are violent suspicions that the pretended Prince of Wales was not Born of the Queen but for the report of the Secret League with France for the extirpation of the Protestant Religion as there is no such thing in his Highnesses Declaration so the spreading of it cannot be laid to his charge since he never gave it out as I know of yet there are certainly great presumptions and too much cause of suspicion that it may be so as I proved at our last Meeting But though you will not allow the Prince the Title of our Deliverer yet I am sure the greatest part both of the Clergy and Laity of the Church of England were once of Opinion that King Iames's violations both upon our Religion and Laws were so great that nothing could preserve the Kingdom from a total Subversion in its Establisht Religion and Civil Constitution but his Highnesses coming over and most of the Bishops were of that Opinion who now the Government is setled refused to take the Oath of Allegiance to their present Majesties But to answer what you say that the manner of Henry the IV ths and Henry the VII ths coming to the Crown doth not at all agree with this Case of King William because they claimed by right of blood which you say King William cannot do that is not so in respect of the Queen who has certainly a right to succeed her Father by right of blood in case the Prince off Wales be not the true Son of the Queen and untill he can be proved so we must at present look upon him as if he were not so at all so that the Convention hath done no more in setling the Crown upon the King during his Life than what the Great Council of the Kingdom have frequently done before upon other vacancies of the Throne as I have proved from the Examples of William Rufus and Henry the First King Stephen King Iohn and Henry the Third And it is very hard to suppose the whole Nation to have been guilty of Perjury and Treason upâ—n their Swearing to and Fighting for those Princes after they were so Solemnlâ— Elected Crowned and Invested with the Royal Power But as for Edward III. his first and best Title was from the election of the Great Council of the Kingdom who I doubt not but if they had found him unworthy of the Royal Dignity by reason of folly or madness or Tyrannical Principles would have set him aside and have made his youngâ—â— Brother King a Protector to govern in the King's Name with Royal Power having never been known in England till the Reign of Henry the VI th but as for Henry the IV th notwithstanding his claim by right of Blood I have already proved that the Paâ—liament by their placing him in the Throne did not at all allow it nor is any such Right recited in the Act of the 7 th of Henry the IV th which by the Crown is entail'd upon that King and his four successive Sons And though it is true Henry the Seventh also claim'd the Crown by right of Inheritance in his Speech in Parliament yet they were so far from allowing it that they do not so much as mention it in that Act of Setlement which as I have recited they made of it upon that and the Heirs of his Body And therefore I think I may still maintain that the Convention hath done nothing in the present Setlement of the Crown but what hath been formerly done upon every vacancy of the Throne either by deposition or resignation of the King or Abdication or Forfeiture of the Crown as in the case of King Iames in which the Convention have done no more than exercised that Power which has always been suppos'd to reside in the great Council of the Kingdom of setling the Crown upon such a Prince of the Blood-Royal as they shall think best to deserve it Thus much I have said to preserve the Antient Right of the Great Council of the Nation But to put all this out of dispute I have been credibly inform'd that the Princess of Denmark her self did by some of her Servants in both Houses as well of the Lords as Commons declare upon a great Debate that arose about securing her Highnesses Right to the Crown immediately after her Sister the Queen that her Highness had desired them to assure the Convention that she was willing to acquiesce in whatever they should determine concerning the Succession of the Crown since it might tend to the present setlement and safety of the Nation which I think is a better Cession of her Right to his present Majesty than any you can prove that the Empress Mawd made to her Son Henry the Second or than the Countess of Richmond ever made to her Son Henry the Seventh M. You have often talked of this forfeiture and extravagant Power of your Convention by whom you suppose they are not obliged to place the Crown upon the head of the next Heir by Blood which I shall prove to be a vain Notion for if there be an absolute forfeiture of the Crown the Government would have been absolutely Dissolved for since there is no Legal Government without a King if the Throne were really vacant and that the People might place whom they pleas'd in it yet the Convention can have no Power to do it as their Representatives since upon your suppos'd dissolution of the Original Contract between the King and the People there was an end of all Conventions and Parliaments too And therefore if a King could have been chosen at all it ought to have been by the Votes of the whole body of the Clergy Nobility and Commons in their own single Persons and not by any Council or Convention to represent them since the Laws for restraining the Election of Parliament-men only to Freeholders are upon this suppos'd Dissolution of the Government altogether void and
Act of Parliament and therefore I must still tell you that you go upon a wrong ground when you suppose that there can be now any dispute who is rightful King of England since I have often told you that he can neither abdicate or forfeit his Right to the Crown and that no Parliament whatever much less a Convention could have any power to declare he had abdicated the Government and that thereby the Throne was become vacant for though I grant the judgement of the Estates of the Kingdom when legally assembled ought to be received with great submission and respect yet must it be only in such matters which they have a legal cognizance of and which they are impower'd by the Laws and Constitutions of the Kingdom to determine but since their Voting him whom you your self cannot deny to have been their lawful King to have abdicated the Throne when indeed he had not and then not only to declare the Throne vacant but also to place those therein whom you your self dare not affirm to be the next Heirs by blood are things quite out of their Element and beyond the Sphere of their Authority and though I grant that they may sometimes judge concerning the Succession of the Crown and who is next heir to it yet is this only to be understood as far as they judge according to the Common Laws of the Succession already laid down at our last Meeting and not when they go quite contrary to them and therefore though I own the Parliament might justly declare Henry the VIth to be an Usurper and consequently might be deposed yet doth it not therefore follow that they had a like right to declare Edward the IVth an Usurper and to pass an Act of Attainder against him as I confess they did after that Prince had held the Crown for ten years together since that was beyond their power to enact or declare by the fundamental constitution of the Government F. I am sorry your answer can afford nothing new but only the repetitions of the same false Principles and Arguments that have been already so often answered in our former Conversations for in the first place I have sufficiently proved that neither the Laws of God nor Nature have ordain'd any such thing as a lineal Succession of Kings or any irresistible or unforfeitable power in them which they can never fall from let them act never so tyrannically for I think I have sufficiently prov'd that not only in absolute Monarchies but also in limited Kingdoms where the King has not the sole Supream power a King may not only be resisted but may be also declar'd to have abdicated or forfeited his right to Govern in case of any apparent obstinate violations of the fundamental Constitution in those great points that make that Government to differ from a despotick Monarchy and that if they had not this right all their liberties will signifie nothing and their Lives Liberties and Estates would lie wholly at the Kings mercy to be invaded and taken away when ever he pleas'd I am forced to repeat this to remind you of the Reasons upon which those Principles are founded and therefore you do but fall into your old mistake when you affirm that by the fundamental constitution of the Government the Great Council of the Nation which was but the same with our late Convention had no power to declare the King to have broken the Original Contract between him and his People Therefore what you say concerning the want of Authority in this Great Council to declare the Throne vacant is altogether precarious unless you could also prove that it is against the fundamental constitution so to do whereas I have so far proved the contrary that the Throne has been declared vacant no less than eight times since the Conquest which makes up almost a third part of the Successions of all the Kings and Queens that have Reigned since that time so that if the custom and practice of Great Councils or Conventions and those not condemn'd by any subsequent Statutes can be the only Rule or Guide for the Consciences of all the Subjects of this Nation we have certainly had that as solemnly declar'd now as in any other Great Council or Convention that has been ever held in this Kingdom but as to what you say concerning the want of power in those Councils to declare or recognize who are the right Heirs to the Crown but not to make them so is very pleasant since that were all one as if two Men who contended for an Estate should bring the matter before the House of Peers and when that was done and the Case solemnly heard by Council on both sides that party who had lost the Cause should declare that this Court tho' the highest in the Kingdom had no power to judge in prejudice of himself who had an undoubted right to the Estate which were only to give the Lords power to give judgment only for one side and why the other Party if the judgment had been given against him should not have made the like Plea I cannot understand So that such a Judgement would be altogether in vain Therefore to apply this to our purpose though the Parliament being prevail'd upon by the strength and faction of the Duke of York did as I granted at our last Meeting declare that his Title could in no wise be defeated yet Henry the VIth being then in the Throne they might have certainly given a contrary judgement if they had pleased and then I suppose the Title of the House of York might have been so defeated as that the Nation had never been troubled with it again and so also when by the power of Edward the IVth a Parliament met and declared him to be lawful King from the time of his Fathers death yet when the said King was driven out of the Kingdom by the Earl of Warwick and King Henry the VIth restored to the Throne a Parliament was summon'd in the 49th of this King wherein Edward the IVth was declared an Usurper and himself attainted and to which Parliament the Duke of Clarence Brother to King Edward the IVth is first Summoned as well as the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury with all the other Bishops Temporal Lords and Judges of whom Littleton the Authour of the Book of Tenures was one so likewise upon King Edwards recovery of the Crown the year following King Henry was again deposed and a Parliament called wherein all the Dukes Earls and Barons with the Arch-Bishops of Canterbury and York and most of the rest of the Bishops Swore to Prince Edward after called Edward the Vth as Right Heir of the Crown Now I desire to know what other Law or Rule there was then for the Subjects Allegiance but the solemn judgement or declaration of the Estates of the Kingdom assembled in Parliament since their Acts and Judgements were in this dispute directly contradictory to each other so that it is evident
an Act of Parliament which is made indefinitely without fixing it to any time or person the words in the Act are the King for the time being which must certainly extend to any other King as well as Henry the VIIth for I suppose that an Act of Parliament and a Deed agreed in this that an unnecessary Clause can by no means render the whole void But as for what you say in relation to this Acts being a security for the Title of the Queen and her Children whom you suppose to be the right Heirs of the Crown this rather serves to strengthen the Act than otherwise for if this King had a good Title in her right then it may be also very well suppos'd that she gave her assent to this Act in the person of her Husband and that not for the benefit but to the prejudice of her own Issue since if after her death which happen'd some years before his her Son Henry Prince of Wales had set up his present Title to the Crown in the right of his Mother and so would have dethron'd his Father as an Usurper I suppose no reasonable Man will deny but that this Act would have indemnified all those who had taken up Arms in defence of King Henry the VIIth against his Son though in your sence King de jure and if it would justifie the Subjects then I cannot see why it may not do the same thing now in their swearing Allegiance nay fighting for the King in possession against him whom we will for the present suppose to be King de jure M. Well however I think I can prove that this Act was no more than temporary from the judgement of the Judges in the Case of Iohn Duke of Northumberland who when he was Tryed for Treason for leading an Army against Queen Mary to settle the Lady Iane Gray in the Throne desired to be informed by the Judges whether a man acting by the Authority of the Great Seal and the Order of the Privy Council or Princes Council as Stow and Heylin word it could become thereby guilty of Treason to which all the Judges answer'd that the Great Seal of one that was not lawful Queen could give no Authority or Indemnity to those that acted by such a Warrant upon which the Duke submitted though without question he did not want Lawyers to inforce his Plea with this Statute likewise if his cause would have born it from whence I infer against Sir Edward Coke that Treason lies against a King de jure tho' out of possession for it 's plain by all our Historians that Queen Mary was so far from being possessed of the Crown when the Duke of Northumberland acted against her that the Lady Iane was not only Proclaimed Queen in London and most of all the Cities and Great Towns in England but the Tower of London with all the Forts and Naval Forces were under her Command and she had also Allegiance sworn to her by the Privy-Council and by the Lord Mayor and Aldermen and she had also the Seals in her power by which all Patents and Commissions were granted and issued in her Name and if all this be not sufficient to constitute her Queen de facto according to this Statute of Henry the VIIth I know not what was F. Yet I can tell you what was yet wanting which because she had not she was certainly neither Queen de jure nor de facto and that was a solemn Coronation and Recognition of her Right by Parliament which legal investiture since she never had she was not the Queen for the time being and consequently not intended within this Statute of the 11th of Henry the VIIth for though it is true she was appointed Successour of the Crown-by the Letters Patents of King Edward the VIth yet since she could not claim by right of blood there being so many before her all the Kingdom looked upon it as an Usurpation and an artifice of the Duke of Northumberland whose Son she had Married to get the Government of the Kingdom into his sole power so that it was no wonder if the greater part of the People were so averse to her Title and that those of the Nobility who took her part so quickly revolted from her when once the fear they were in of the Duke of Northumberland's power was removed for had this Bequest of the Crown to the Lady Iane held good this Kingdom instead of being Hereditary would have become wholly Testamentary and disposable by the last Will or Letters Patents of the King or Queen for the time being without the consent of the Great Council of the Nation which is contrary not only to the then receiv'd Laws of Succession but also to the antient constitution of the Kingdom as well before as after the Conquest But notwithstanding all this I doubt not but that if the Lady Iane had so far prevail'd against Queen Mary as to have been able to call a Parliament and to have had her Title own'd and recogniz'd therein as it was in the Case of Richard the Third and Henry the Seventh but that she would have been true and lawful Queen according to the intent of the Statute we are now discoursing of and then the Duke of Northumberland must likewise if he had fair play have been indemnified for taking up Arms in her defence against Queen Mary since Queen Iane would have been then within the letter of this Statute as much as King Henry the Seventh himself M. You must pardon me if I cannot be of your opinion in this matter since if the bare Coronation and recognition by Parliament could confer a legal right to the Crown upon one who had no hereditary right to it before the consequence of it would be that the Crown would be so far from being Elective as you suppose it to have antiently been that it would be in the power of every bold Usurper or Rebell who had but the confidence to call himself King to gain a legal Title to be so according to your Principles and then if Oliver Cromwell could have found a Party strong enough in the Army to have declar'd him King and had call'd a Parliament in his own name who had recogniz'd him for their Lawful Sovereign he would then have had as much right to our Allegiance as King Charles the IId which certainly was not only contrary to the settlement of the Crown upon Henry the VIIth and the Heirs of his body but also to that solemn recognition of King Iames the Firsts Title as lineally descended as right Heir to the said King Henry which I insisted on at our last Meeting And therefore if you will have my sence of this Act it is either expir'd for the reasons I have already given or else was void ab initio since it is not only contrary to the setled course of Succession of the Crown according to the Laws of lineal descent for divers hundred years last past but
Nation as I have already sufficiently made out And therefore though I grant that all Legal Authority ought still to go according to just or rightful Titles yet since God makes no Kings at this day â—ut those who are made Kings by some humane Acts and have a legal right to Kingship by some humane Laws Now how can you prove from hence that in England none can have a legal right to govern but those who have the rightful Title of a Lineal Succession for if the Title alone does not conferr the the Authority but that the Law says a legal investiture by Coronation and Recognition by Parliament shall also conferr it it is evident that an Hereditary Title and a Legal Authority may be separated and yet the Authority continue Legal still for Legal Authority must be conveyed in such manner and by such forms as the Law has prescribed or appoints to that purpose for there is no other way of conveying it and then that Authority which is so given in form of Law and that only is the Legal Authority If then the Estates of the Realm who are the only proper Judges of such Disputes have adjudged the Crown to one whom we will at present suppose to have no antecedent legal Title to it yet he thereby becomes legally possessed not only of the external force and power but of the legal Authority of the Government also and therefore he may challenge as his due all Legal Obedience which is the true notion of Allegiance for nothing more than Legal Obedience can be due to a meer Legal Authority so that because he is invested with the Legal Authority the Crown is his Legal Property against all other Claims and his Subjects must defend him in it as the Legal Properties of private Persons being once determined by Judgements of inferiour Courts of Law are also to be defended by the Civil Power against the force of him who perhaps may have the better Title to the Estate by right of blood And if God makes Kings by humane Acts I hope it is no injustice in God to make him a King whom the Law makes a King and to enjoyn our Obedience to a Legal King which Legal Authority may be said to be annexed to the Legal Title while there is no Legal Judgement against it which was not the Case of Queen Mary and the Lady Iane her Competitor nor yet of King Charles the Second and Oliver Cromwell since neither the one ' or the other were ever Crowned or acknowledged as Lawful Queen or King by Parliament and therefore could obtain no Legal Title against the Right Heirs but on the other side when one is solemnly declar'd King or Queen being Crown'd or plac'd on the Throne by the Estates of the Realm he is then Legal King and has the Legal Authority as the Royal Estate and Dignity was owned to be in Henry the VIth when the Duke of York claimed the right to the Crown M. I am not yet convinc'd I am mistaken in this matter for waving at present any Natural or Divine Rights of Princes I think this Act of Henry the VIIth if suppos'd to be now in force is no ways to be reconcil'd with the former declar'd Laws and Statutes of the Kingdom much less can this last pretended Act of Recognition of King William and Queen Mary reverse the Statute of Recognition made to King Iames the First whereby the Parliament does not only own him for true and lawful King by descent from Henry the VIIth and Edward the IVth but also engaged themselves and their Posterities to his Majesty and his Royal Progeny for ever And they do likewise conclude in these words I have not yet mention'd which Act if Your Majesty shall be pleased as an argument of your gracious acceptation to adorn with your Majesties Royal Assent without which it can neither be compleat and perfect nor remain to all Posterity according to our most humble desires as a Memorial of your Princely and tender affection towards us we shall add this also to the rest of our Majesties unspeakable and inestimable benefits Here they plainly acknowledge these two things First that the Crown descendâ— by proximity of blood and that immediately even before any Ceremony of Coronation or otherwise so that there can be no inter-regnum or vacancy of the Throne and accordingly it is a maxim in Law that Rex non meritur Secondly That the Assent of the King is that which gives the life being and vigour to the Laws without which they are of no force therefore I shall plainly prove these Acts to the contrary to be void It is a Maxim in our Civil as well as your common Law ' that every Sâ—natus-Consultum or Decree of the Senate as also every Statute or Act of Parliament must be abrogated and repeal'd by the same Authority by which it was made since therefore that Act of the first of Edward the IVth whereby he was declar'd to be Lawful King as descended from Lâ—â—nel Duke of Clarence third Son of Edward the Third by Philippa his Daughter and Heir and that Henry the Fourth and Henry the Sixth who had successively held the Crown were Usurpers and only pretended Kings it would necessarily follow that none can after this so Solemn Law and Declaration lawfully succeed to the Crown of this Realm but such as have a true and just right as Heirs by blood according to the course of descent allow'd of by the common Laws of this Kingdom and therefore Henry the VIIth being an Usurper and enjoying no more than a Matrimonial Crown could not joyn with a Parliament in making any Law contrary to that of the first of Edward the IVth which had been so solemnly past and setled in Parliament by a King whose Title was by descent indisputable So likewise in the matter now in dispute between us I can never apprehend how a pretended Statute made in a Convention and not in a Lawful Parliament summon'd by the King can first declare the Throne vacant and then appoint those to fill it who certainly can have no just Title to it according to that Act of Recognition of King Iames which expresly declares that they themselves could not have made that Act to be compleat and perfect to remain to all posterity without his Royal Assent which being once past into a Law by a King whose Title was indisputable can never afterwards be alter'd if ever it can be at all but by a Parliament as legally call'd and that by a King whose Title is also as Legal as that of King Iames the First 's this Objection though I have often urg'd in other words yet could I never yet obtain a satisfactory answer from you F. Though I have already in part answer'd this Objection at our last Meeting and have also partly done it already in this yet since I see you so much insist upon it and do also urge it again in other words with a fresh
was the only right Heir this is to beg the question since if he had not been so it would have been all one as you your self confess As for the rest of your Arguments which you draw from the different means which our Law allows for Princes succeeding to the Crown which you call a mungrel hodge podge course of Succession and that it derogates from the Dignity of a true Hereditary Monarchy to which I shall only say if now our Law has established it so no private Man ought to judge otherwise for nemo debet esse sapientior legibus is a maxime as old as true but indeed though our Laws do establish a legal right in the present Possessor of the Crown when once Crown'd and Recogniz'd by Parliament since they will not allow the Parliament to judge of or examine the Kings Title or by what means he attain'd the Throne yet this does not to alter the ordinary hereditary course of Succession for the Law still looks upon the Crown as Hereditary and the change of the Person or Royal Family does not make the Crown cease to be so and therefore whoever has possession of the Crown has an Hereditary Crown and as such may leave it to his Heirs as long as they can keep it as is plain from the example of the three Henries who succeeded each other and who had not only Allegiance sworn to them but they who acted contrary thereunto were judged and executed as Traytors so that the Law did all it could to maintain the Crown in the right line of Succession and if any Kings have gain'd it by Usurpation though the Parliament have own'd the Authority of such an Usurper yet have they not thereby approv'd the action and you your self must acknowledge a great difference between these two since you have more than once acknowledged that an Usurper or King in possession has a good Title to a Crown in case all the right Heirs are extinct or by their not claiming it for any long time are suppos'd to have made a â—acit cession of their right since it is not so much to the Person as to the Authority which we grant to be from God that we pay our obedience But let us also for once suppose that there may be a legal Title to a Crown without a right to exercise the Authority belonging to it and a legal right to wear the Crown and exercise the Authority belonging to it without an antecedent legal Right to the Crown it self this is no such absurdity as you suppose if you please to consider that allow'd distinction between jus ad rem and jus in re with the reason of it for t is an approved distinction in Law that one may have a right to a thing and another a right in it the one is a right of a legal claim the other of a legal possession and that this may and must be in all Civil Governments and meer legal Rights appears from the different Laws and Customs on which such different rights are founded This I have hinted before but must now explain it more particularly in all Civil Societies there must be particular Laws to determine personal and particular Rights and whatever is due to any Man by such Laws is his legal Right But yet we know these Laws can determine no controversie without a living Judge for if every Man were to judge for himself every Man will make the Law to be on his side and then we had as good have no Laws at all and therefore the Fundamental Laws of all Societies which is superior to all particular Laws is this That the last and final Judgment of Authority shall be taken for Law and that shall be every Man 's right as to all the Effects of Law which is thus adjudged him whoever calmly considers these things will find that it is impossible it should be otherwise without overturning all Civil Governments And this I have proved to you from the Example of a right owner of an Estate when outed of his Possession by a Verdict of a Jury and an unjust Judgment in one of the King's Courts that no Man ought to restore him by force to his Possession till he has again reverst that unjust Judgment given against him M. Though I grant this is true in the Case of private Persons and their Inheritances yet is it not so as to Princes who hold their Crowns by a Title superior to the ordinary Municipal Laws and therefore are not only Kings by Law but by Divine Right and a Fundamental Constitution of the Government and so cannot have their Title adjudged by Parliament as you suppose for our best Divines have unanimously concluded out of Scripture that all lawful Kings and their Royal Power is from God by Divine right and is not from the People no not in Elective Kingdoms such as Poland for Example for even there the conferring of the Royal Authority is from God and not from any Law made by the People and neither they nor their Representatives have any thing to do to judge of it for I would gladly know who made that Law which made the King certainly the King did not make it for that Law which made the King must of necessity precede and be before the King who had his Royal Power and Kingly Office from that Law F. I see you are very hard put to it since you are again forc'd to flie back to your old Covert of a Divine Right in Kings which is not to be deriv'd from any Law made by the consent of the People and if this be true I desire you would show me how Kings can at this day owe their Crownâ— immediately to God and not to the Law since God does no longer confer Kingdoms by any express Designation of the Person but by the ordinary course of his Providence and then pray tell me why all Princes whatsoever when they are once seated in the Throne let them come by it which way they will must not derive their power alike from God and consequently Kings by an unjust Conquest or Usurpation are as much from God as those who ascend the Throne by the Consent or Election of the People for if the Peoples consent do no more then design the Person but that it is God alone which gives him his Authority then which way soever he obtains this power of the Sword which is the onely sign of God's conferring this Authority it will be also the Ordinance of God and consequently their present Majesties being once seated in the Throne are upon these principles as much to be obey'd as the Ordinance of God as King Iames or any other Hereditary Monarch whatever But if you do not like this Doctrine and tell me of a legal Successive right which King Iames and his right Heirs have to the Crown according to the Fundamental Constitution of the Nation this is plainly to own the King to be so by the Law of the
in pleyn Parliament that is in full Parliament where both Lords and Commons were present that the Proceedings of the Lords against those that were no Peers should not be drawn into Example c. Now pray see the Commentaries of the most Learned and Reverend Author of the Grand Question upon these words in this Record This hath all the formality of an Act of Parliament and therefore all the Estates were present so likewise in the same year in the next Roll but one Accorde est per nostre Seigneur le Roy son Counsell in Plein Parliament which was an Act of Parliament concerning those that had followed the Earl of Lancaster So in the 5 th of this King we have the particular mention of the Bishops as some of those who make a full Parliament Accorde est per nostre Seigneur le Roy Prelates Counts Barons autres Grands de Roiaâ—me in pleyn Parliament So in the 6 th of Edward the Ill d the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury made his Oration in pleyn Parliament which is thus explained en le presence nostre Seigneur le Roy tous les Prelats autres Grantz And in another Roll si est accorde assentu per tous in pleyn Parliament and who these were we are told in the same Roll viz. les Prelats Counts Barons tous les autres Summons à misme Parliament Now this is the clearest explication of these words in full Parliament viz. in the presence of all those who were Summon'd so that if the Commons were then Summon'd to this Parliament as certainly they were they must have given their Assents under the Title of Grantz since the Prelats Earls and Barons were particularly mention'd before To Dialogue the 10 th p. 706. after these words be Reformed by them or not read thus And that King Iames the First himself was satisfied of this Original Contract may appear by his own words in a Speech to both Houses of Parliament 1609. where he expresly tells them that the King binds himself by a double Oath to the observation of the fundamental Laws of his Kingdom Tacitly as being a King and so bound to Protect as well the People as the Laws of his Kingdom and expresly by his Oath at his Coronation so as every King in a setled Kingdom is bound to observe that paction made to his People by his Laws in framing the Government as agreeable thereunto according to that paction which God made with Noah after the Deluge c. To Dialogue 12. p. 874. after their Successors add this So that all the Modern Acts of Parliament for intailing the Crown being made and ordained by the Counsel and Assent of the Lords and Commons are so many plain declarations and evident Recognitions what the Fundamental Constitution of the English Government was in that grand Point To Dialogue the 12 th p. 898. after the words of the said Parish read thus and that not only all the Private Acts of that Parliament but some Publick ones also tho' never confirmed in the following Parliament of the 13th of Charles the Second are yet held good in Law appears by these that follow viz. 1. An Act for Continuance of Process and Iudicial Proceedings Continu'd By which all Writs Pleas Indictments c. then depending were ordered to stand and proceeded on notwithstanding want of Authority in the late Usurpers and therein it was farther ordained that Process and Proceedings in Courts of Justice should be in the English Tongue and the generall Issue be Pleaded till August 1. 1660. as if the Acts made during the Usurpation for that purpose had been good and effectual Laws And upon this foot only stand many Fines Recoveries Judgments and other Proceedings at Law had and passed between April 25 1660 and August 1. 1660. 2. An Act for Conforming and Restoring of Ministers This Act is usually to this day set forth and pleaded in Quare impedits tho' it was said to be refused upon debate to be confirmed in the House of Commons 13th of Car. II. when divers other Acts of the same time were confirmed yet both these Acts having no other Authority but from that Convention as you call it have been Judged and Constantly allowed to be good Laws for above these 30 years To Dialogue the 13 th p. 966. after these words were still alive read this And to shew you that the King and Parliament have deprived even Bishops of their own Communion and that such deprivations have been held good and that the King hath nominated new Bishops upon the vacancy you may see in Dr. Burnets History of the Reformation and in the Appendix to it where you will find a memorable Act of Parliament of the 25 th of Henry the VIII before his departure from his obedience to the See of Rome whereby Cardinal Campegio and Hieronimo de Ghinicci were deprived of the Bishopricks of Salisbury and Worcester which they had held for near 20 years and Campegio had without doubt been installed in it when he was in England The Act it self being so remarkable I shall give you some passages out of it verbatim first the Preamble sets forth that whereas before this time the Church of England by the Kings most Noble Progenitors and the Nobles of the same hath been founded ordained and establish'd in the Estate and degree of Prelacy Dignities and other Promotions Spiritual c. which sufficiently confirms what I but now asserted that all the Bishopricks were founded by our Kings with the consent of their Grand Councils or Parliaments and then it proceeds to recite that whereas all Persons promoted to Ecclesiastical Benefices ought to reside within the Realm for Preaching the Laws of Almighty God and keeping hospitality and since these Prelates had not observed these things but lived at Rome and carried the Revenues of their Bishopricks out of the Kingdom contrary to the intention of the Founders and to the great prejudice of the Realm c. in consideration whereof it is Enacted by the Authority of this present Parliament that the said two Sees and Bishopricks of Salisbury and Worcester and either of them henceforth shall be taken reputed and accounted in the Law to be void vacant and utterly destitute of any Incumbent or Prelate and then follows a Clause enabling the King his Heirs and Successors to nominate and appoint Successors being the Natives of this Realm to the said Sees and the King did nominate Successors according to the said Act. A Table of ERRATA THE Authors Occasions not permitting 〈…〉 Town whilst most of these Dialogue were in the Press begs pardon for the many Erratas in some of them and desires you to Correct such gross ones that alter or disturb the sense viz. Dial. 1. p. â—0 l 24. for Author r. Authority p. 52. l. 37. for 4th r. 5th p. 36. l. 38. for Rights r. Rites Dial. 2. p. 80. l. 25. del hundred r thousand p. 80 l. 22. d. Greek p. 84.